Coalition attempts to rewrite history on support for wind, solar and RET

The Coalition is again feigning selective amnesia about the country’s climate and clean energy policies, and the party’s key role in delivering rising prices and a weakening, less stable electricity system. History tells another story.

It was hardly surprising that former prime minister John Howard was having a cheap shot at climate and clean energy policies last week, telling an audience in Perth about the “scandalous” clean energy policies in Australia and why the country should never have gone beyond his target of just 2 per cent renewable energy.

“The former prime minister said the RET was 2 per cent when he left office in 2007 and should have remained at that level,” The Australian quoted Howard as saying. Little wonder really, given the role that Howard and his then energy minister, and now fossil fuel lobbyist Ian Macfarlane, did in ending the then MRET.

Just as shocking, however, was the response from current energy and environment minister Josh Frydenberg who, not for the first time in the past week or so, has suffered from selective amnesia about the country’s climate and clean energy policies, and the Coalition’s role.

“How did Australia find itself in a position of rising prices and a weakening, less stable system?” Frydenberg asks with a rhetorical flourish in an opinion piece in Monday’s edition of The Australian, titled Recklessness fed energy crisis.

The answer, most would argue, is the Coalition’s deliberate attack on climate and energy policies once its right wing took control of the party – the removal of the carbon price, the attempts to scrap and then cut the new renewable energy target – introduced with bipartisan support and its assault on every other climate and clean energy institution.

Frydenberg, who last week tried to reframe the Paris climate deal by suggesting Australia should not aim for anything more than its current 26-28 per cent emissions reduction target, and seeing no need to reach zero emissions before the second half of the century, wrote in his piece:

“Labor came into office and recklessly extended the RET to 45,000 gigawatt hours …”

Recklessly extended? It was done with the full and enthusiastic support of the Coalition. And just out of interest, we dived back into Hansard to see exactly what the Coalition said about it at the time – remembering that the MRET sought “at least” 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020, and had a fixed target of 45,000GWh.

This is what the then environment spokesman Greg Hunt said, as late as June 17, 2013:

“We support the target, we created the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, which became the Renewable Energy Target. We gave bipartisan support to its creation,” before trailing off and complaining about the excess solar credits which were dealt with when the small-scale target was spun out and the LRET became 41,000GWh.

And here is what was said when the 45,000GWh was originally debated in parliament in August, 2009, by Coalition MPs.

Alex Hawke – (Mitchell, NSW):

“The primary aim of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 is to set in place a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. I think that is a wonderful thing.”

“The primary bill that we are discussing this afternoon sets in place a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. The majority of the parliament supports this and certainly the Coalition support it, and strongly support it. We want to see this happen.”

Judith Moylan – (Pearce, W.A.):

“The opposition is supportive of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill. I have heard the shadow minister for the environment, the Hon. Greg Hunt, say on many occasions that Australia can become a solar nation and, as I mentioned, there are other renewable sources of energy that Australia is very rich in. This is important legislation. Probably rarely have we debated such important legislation in this House.

Luke Simpkins – (Cowan, W.A.):

“The legislation maps out the progressive increase in the mandatory renewable energy target from 9,500 gigawatt hours to the 45,000 gigawatt hours I mentioned before. The bottom line is that electricity wholesalers will have to ensure they have 20 per cent of their energy produced by renewable sources. They can achieve that by obtaining electricity produced by solar, wind, geothermal or other options. If they cannot then they have to buy RECs. If they still cannot reach the target then they have to pay the shortfall charge of $65 per megawatt-hour. That is what this legislation is meant to do and we offer our support for it, subject to some amendments that are being negotiated at this time. It is certainly the coalition’s position to pursue a clean energy economy and with no equivocation we support the 20 per cent target.

Rowan Ramsey – (Grey, S.A.)

“In closing, I say renewable energies offer great opportunities for Australia and the world, and more will have to be done to support these fledgling industries. But the renewable energy target is a good piece of legislation, and I offer it my support.”

Sharman Stone – (Murray, Vic):

“So I repeat: we, the coalition in government, understood renewables. We have grown up with them. We have grown up with windmills and with gravity fed irrigation systems that produce the food of the world and can keep on doing that. We know what to do. We are deeply concerned that in trying to couple this bill with the CPRS, political games are being played. But we do support an MRET. We particularly strongly support the concept of a 20 per cent renewable energy target. We will therefore continue to do our best to get an outcome which helps save this country and which ultimately contributes to the global response to reducing carbon emissions. We can do it if we work together. We just ask that you take this problem seriously, not as a political game.”

Of course, when the Abbott government got into power, the political games began. The Coalition feigned support of the 20 per cent target, then reframed that to suggest they supported 20 per cent and not 41,000GWh. Eventually, they wore Labor and the industry down and got a change to 33,000GWh.

At least Frydenberg now agrees that the “2020 target is well on track to be met” – contrary to the right-wing commentary of recent years and the best efforts of the fossil fuel lobby.

The question, now, is where it goes from here. The Coalition has been in power for four years and can hardly put the blame on previous legislation when it supported it so strongly and it had an opportunity to rewrite the rules when it changed the LRET.

Australia is still at barely 15-16 per cent renewables, and more than half of this is hydro. As the CSIRO and Energy Networks Australia have suggested, anything less than 30-50 per cent wind and solar penetration can be considered “trivial”.

South Australia has reached those levels, but while more careful management is required than what has been shown to date, the nature of renewable energy – its intermittency – has not been shown to be responsible for any of the blackouts. Bad decisions, and an out-dated grid may well have done.

The opportunity is there to embrace these new technologies and move forward to the zero emissions grid that the CSIRO, the network owners, the bigger generators and the market operator accept is achievable, and desirable, because in the long run it will be cheaper and more reliable, as well as cleaner and smarter.

But there are few signs yet that the Coalition has seized the message. Unless, of course, such trash-talking of their own policy decisions is solely designed to placate, once again, the right wing rump of this government.

Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of The Driven. Giles has been a journalist for 35 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review.

Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of The Driven. Giles has been a journalist for 35 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review.

66 Comments

If the government has such a strong belief that more coal fired power stations is the answer, then why don’t they take a few billion dollars of tax payer funds and build a couple of these “high efficiency, clean” coal fired power stations?? Nobody else is going to build them!

lin 2 years ago

If the government ministers are so big on more coal, how about they put 100% of their own super behind it, rather than taxpayer money. If they are not willing to risk their future on it, I don’t see why we should be expected to.

john 2 years ago

No way they would do that when there is this free to them honey pot to waste.

Joe 2 years ago

The Canavan and The Joyce would be the first to hand over their hard earned ?

john 2 years ago

Because David the money spent building a coal fired power station would be a financial disaster, as the station would go broke and be sold for peanuts possibly $1 like one was sold not that long ago, was it not in NSW?

Yes, that is why they will not do it. So why not call their bluff and put an end to it!

howardpatr 2 years ago

From Four Corners, 9/11/2009:-

SARAH FERGUSON (to Nick Minchin): What proportion of the Liberal Party are climate change sceptics do you think from your discussions?

NICK MINCHIN: If the question is, do people believe or not believe that human beings are causing, are the main cause of the planet warming, then I’d say a majority don’t accept that position.

MALCOLM TURNBULL, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.

Eight years on and the majority in the LNP still don’t accept anthropogenic climate change and Turnbull has shown the nation just what a hypocrite he is.

Joe 2 years ago

I think Round 3 in the war between Premier Jay and Joshie Frydenberg is about to start. Can we send Premier Jay a copy Giles’ report above, arrange another Presser in Adelaide with all the media….let it rip !!!!!!

John Burnett 2 years ago

Ill buy that for a dollar

phred01 2 years ago

That’s why I call him Turncoat

Joe 2 years ago

Just gotta luv ‘Honest Johnny Howard”. In the wake of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” when environment, global warming and climate change were headlines “Honest Johnny” was desperate to stop the bleeding of environment votes in the run up to the 2007, So he dreams up the MRET now RET and sells himself as a friend of the environment. The truth was revealed some time ago when he said that he that he never believed in the RET, it was all about politics and the 2007 election. His latest utterance of 2% is just more grist for the mill. “Honest Johnny” needs to be called out for it.

phred01 2 years ago

The black lump of clean coal has been buried in the garden where the fairies live

Durham 52 2 years ago

Fraudenberg being less than honest about something? Say it isn’t so…..

Chris Fraser 2 years ago

… utter weathervanes.

John Burnett 2 years ago

In the seedy back room of the COALition party room Puppet says “I need to save my job. ScoMo what can we do”? ScoMo “Dunno why not ask my supervisor Potato Head Pete”. Potato Head Pete “I know, we’ll steal Labours policies, claw back polls, blame Labour for stealing their policies and if that doesnt work we’ll just blame we’ll blame the senate”. Nothing changes. oh by the way polls haven’t changed Labour 55 COALition 45.

R Dub 2 years ago

It takes fossil fuel energy to produce electric power—even with the solar grand scam. From the mining of quartz sand to the coating with ethylene-vinyl acetate, manufacturing a photovoltaic (PV) solar cell requires energy—most often derived from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, most of the energy used to manufacture solar panels come from what they will not replace: Fossil fuel fired plants. The production of solar panel produces the SAME pollutants as fossil fuels – monocrystalline silicate cells with the highest energy conversion efficiency of 12-14 percent. And, thin-film solar PVs employ heavy metals such as cadmium recovered from mining slimes, with the same overall toxic emissions as Fossil fuels. The energy benefits of solar photovoltaics will only improve as the technology continues to increase its efficiency at converting sunlight to electricity (which is 30% of the light spectrum that produces electricity) or evidence that the panels last longer than the mythical 20-25 years. Solar panels cannot even produce enough energy to reproduce themselves without fossil fuel power plants. Windmill maintenance cost outweigh what little energy they produce. There down time is much higher than their meager up time. Wind is unpredictable.

john 2 years ago

Your post is puerile and that is being charitable. Each point not exactly correct.

R Dub 2 years ago

You’re a fossil fuel denier! I expected low grade MORONS like you to reply with fantasy Bull spit!!!

Calamity_Jean 2 years ago

“Each point exactly not correct.”

FIFY.

Mike Shackleton 2 years ago

Incorrect, Solar panels produced in 2013 have an EROEI of about 25 – that means 25 times the energy required to make the panel is returned as electrical energy over the panel’s life.

Cloudy days, dust particles and IR drops across inverters that burn out every 4-6 years. You still have to depend on fossil fuel energy production during power outages (safety). Now with coal mines opening, oil pipe lines from Canada, solar and wind are thankfully on the way OUT. Sham solar companies are declaring bankruptcies on the daily basis. Give it up, you got nothing!

Joe 2 years ago

R Dub my man, no need for your nasty talk below. Please take a moment to check the facts that Solar and Wind energy installations and production are booing around the world. It is Coal that is on the way out. Whilst sadly your Canadian oil pipelines have some prospect it is at a huge cost to the environment and to the rights of the Indigenous Peoples whose land those pipelines are being laid. The Canadian Tar Sands is the most abominable environmental catastrophe that mankind has ever brought to fruition. Australia’s proposed Adani Carmichael Coalmine is right up there as an environmental abomination and this time it is our own Indigenous Peoples that are being trampled in the rush for that “Little Black Wonder Rock”.

Joe 2 years ago

“booing” was a typo…read “booming” !

R Dub 2 years ago

I, like many are sick and tired of BULLSHIT! If the gov. wants to shove this schit down our throats… I am dead set against it. I’m a retired instrumentation field engineer, I know the science. Please, lets not waste anymore time on this. I won’t change your mind and you won’t change my mind. Lets agree to disagree! OUT!!!

Mike Shackleton 2 years ago

Well, go be dead set against it elsewhere, this is a discussion about Solar farms in Australia, where the conditions are favourable for it and the population wants it mate.

R Dub my man, you are right that we shouldn’t waste any more time….we have NO TIME to waste in halting dangerous climate change!…the science that you already know, yes. We don’t actually need you to change your mind on anything. All we need is for you step to the side, stop spreading mis nformations and let the Energy Transformation proceed, which is what the people of the world want to see happen.

That chart is as misleading as they get. Cost of what per kWh? Of extacting the fuel, or producing electricity? What is your source? There are plenty of reports and charts that speak of the Levelised Cost of Energy, which currently put new coal power plants and gas plants at a higher cost that wind and solar.

I work in the Renewable Energy field and I see first-hand the amount of MWh these plants provide. There is no hoax, no “leftist conspiracy”. Electricity actually comes out of these things and power houses and factories, all while reducing the output of fossil fuel plants.

And at this point of history, we are at an inflection point, in which coal and gas will no longer be dominant as they are more expensive to build even without any schemes favouring them. It is inevitable, and then all discussion around these points will be utterly useless.

R DUD, very disappointing all your dirty word talks. When someone loses the argument then all they have left is to play the man…that is you R DUD with your dirty word talks. A lovely chart I see from you showing just how valuable Solar is !!!!!

Your nothing but a liar, cost of solar in many parts of the world have dropped to less than 3 cents kwh. In addition all those costs ALL of them for fossil fuel is incorrect. Just go away little man.

R Dub 2 years ago

Where are those POS electric cars getting their recharge at night (fossil fuel plants)??? Your answer should be “net zero”. But it’s not always the case. Rather than slamming down 20-30 K for solar, and rather than pay the bank in pay-back years; Why not just pay PG&E (or whatever provider) 20-30 K in advance to cover 8 or 10 years and leave out the middle man; solar and wind. Your next argument will be, The price of solar has come way down in the last 5-7 years. Yes. If your lord and god Purple lips Obama closes coal plants, raise the price of oil and gas, yes! But the problem remains. Now that a normal person is in the white-House we will see a reset from that disastrous 8 years of that affirmative action pos Obama. Solar and wind will NEVER be ready for prime time. The chart below says it all. Now sit down, dry your eye (Snowflake) and … STFU. (SUV’s are selling like crazy)

This was pre – solar and wind shoved down our throats. This chart is back to the future as our US energy takes off again under the Trump admin. Solar and wind are getting the same treatment purple lipped Obama and the dRat’s gave coal, natural gas, and oil. That chart is our new NORM ( remember term). Get used to it! There is a GOD.

Ron Horgan 2 years ago

R Dub’s profile says it all.

Calamity_Jean 2 years ago

“…evidence that the panels last longer than the mythical 20-25 years. “

Each solar array will produce over its lifetime many multiples of the energy used to make it. Your complaint makes as much sense as objecting to automobiles because the construction materials for the first automobile factory were hauled to the site on horse-drawn wagons.

“Wind is unpredictable.”

Wind is unpredictable at any one location, but the atmosphere can’t stop moving. There’s going to be wind at one place or another all the time. Build enough wind turbines in enough different places and it will average out to be reasonably consistent.

Your information is many years out of date. Solar costs have fallen sharply in the last ten years. Natural gas cost in the US is now low enough to compete with coal also. Your graph was true at one time, but isn’t true now.

R Dub 2 years ago

Out of date? Well all the bull you people have been spewing will soon be put to the test. The climate accord (scam) has just been shoved back into the Paris sewer system where it belongs. NOW hopefully, President Trump will eliminate the federal tax credit on all solar and wind etc… so you people can COMPETE on the open market with CLEAN fossil fuels (Natural gas, clean coal and oil). This will be exciting. I know you folks are looking forward to the challenge and proving your MOOT points. Thank god we have a real leader running this country. Lets roll…

Calamity_Jean 2 years ago

“…President Trump will eliminate the federal tax credit on all solar and wind….”

Not possible. Congress passed it, they would have to repeal it. Considering that Congress passed extensions to the solar and wind tax credits in 2015, and that both credits are scheduled to sunset in a few years (solar in 2021, wind in 2019), AND considering that Congress has been trying and failing to repeal Obamacare for over seven years now, I’d say the tax credits are safe. By the time Congress could get it together to repeal them, the credits will have expired.

“…clean coal….”

There’s no such thing, even if you ignore the carbon dioxide. Coal smoke and ash contain uranium, mercury, and arsenic among other noxious elements.

“I know you folks are looking forward to the challenge….”

Oh, you betcha! Renewables gonna whup fossil fuels’ ugly backsides.

R Dub 2 years ago

I love your fighting spirit Jean. I worked at the clean coal research project at fort Lewis, Washington in the late 70’s early 80’s. The project produced a fine clean solid coal product devoid of ash (minimal) and all sulfur (by product for munitions), and a clean liquid product that can be distiled into gasoline. All solid residual was used in asphalt for building roads. From beginning to the end of the process stack scrubbers were in operation to collect solid and poisonous vapor from exiting into the atmosphere. Water that was used in process emptied into basins that contained bacteria that fed on the waste (BP spill that the stupid politicians didn’t know that mother nature could clean up without human intervention) , and after treatment was cleaner than the water used from the cape fear river where it was released (cleaning a polluted river). The processes in producing solar panels cannot make that same claim. Thats why most of them are produced in china (partially). Sun power produces a great product here in the US with a smaller foot print than cheaper panels. Thats because They are extracting a higher amount of the spectrum of light that produces electricity (30%), a higher portion of that. I too look forward to an open competition concerning our countries energy needs in the future. If politicians would get the eff out of our way our country would be much more advanced in the energy field. I like you calamity, but knowing what I know and what the unqualified politicians DON’T… my anger gets in the way of communicating with people as wonderful as you and few others. Thank for being there. We can work together. Bless you… R Dub

The solar industry is moot at this point, get over it. you folks have had an unethical and corrupt run with this BS. It has now fallen to it’s rightful place; a last resort. Fossil fuel is back. The solar, wind mistake is over. Solar is circling the drain just like global warming which failed and was forced to down-grade to climate change.(Nemesis star system featuring Nibiru 9/26/2017 – 12/26/2017). Jean, there’s plenty of work for you on the pipelines or in a refinery (great pay). Let this solar/wind fantasy go. Get your life back on track. Back to my day trading and you try not to hurt yourself. Be back in 6-7 hours to reply to your nonsense. (I’m lovin’ IT!

Calamity_Jean 2 years ago

>>Snicker<< That's OK, honey, you can be as ignorant as you wanna be. When ten or 15 years from now Exxon and Shell file for bankruptcy, we'll believe you when you say, "Who could have foreseen this?" Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

R Dub 2 years ago

Have fun camping with that CRAP! Thank GOD we have a real leader in the White-House now. Thanks Jean…

Joe 2 years ago

R Dud my man, forget The White House. Have at look at the announcement from “The Blue House”. South Korea President Moon is CLOSING DOWN your lovely coal power plants. The pollution is killing the citizens so coal power will be replaced by clean and CHEAP solar, wind and bio mass. No that’s what I call giving a ‘Moonie” to coal !

R Dub 2 years ago

Joe my misguided man, Where are those POS electric cars getting their recharge at night (fossil fuel plants)??? Your answer should be “net zero”. But it’s not always the case. Rather than slamming down 20-30 K for solar, and rather than pay the bank in pay-back years; Why not just pay PG&E (or whatever provider) 20-30 K in advance to cover 8 or 10 years and leave out the middle man; solar and wind. Your next argument will be, The price of solar has come way down in the last 5-7 years. Yes. If your lord and god Purple lips Obama closes coal plants, raise the price of oil and gas, yes! But the problem remains. Now that a normal person is in the white-House we will see a reset from that disastrous 8 years of that affirmative action pos Obama. Solar and wind will NEVER be ready for prime time. The chart below says it all. Now sit down, dry your eye (Snowflake) and … STFU. (SUV’s are selling like crazy)

Joe 2 years ago

R Dud my man I think I read your post further up the page and repeating your nonsense does not make it any better the second time around. You seem to be on a crusade against Barack Obama and his purple lips. Just look around the world to see what is happening. Your former champions of coal in China and India are reducing dependence on coal. In the U.S of the A coal power plants are closing down and The Donald despite all his big talking cannot bring back the coal power industry. The market and economics have already made the decision, wind and solar with storage is the now….coal was last century.

R Dub 2 years ago

Replace purple lips with domestic terrorist and seditiousness Barrack Insane Obama and the RAT party. With storage (More pollutants) HA-HA! Nice try the market will follow the lowest price producer of energy. Bankruptcies for the solar industry is sky rocketing. Solar/wind are dying. The hard core socialist in gov. will be rooted out. Coal, oil, and natural gas is this century. Solar is a WANT for people, NOT a need any more. Coal can be liquefied and distilled into fuel for autos, into lighter gases and asphalt. It was good enough to fuel Hitler’s Panzer division. Call out to the other useless bureaucrat in the cubicle next to you to prepare to work in the old energy business in the fresh air https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eee7f47704d73c5ddce47c0e2bd852136e418b1dc5635f6cae106a5d1c860b73.jpg . The DOE is on it’s way OUT. BYE

R Dub 2 years ago

I hope my illustrations will help with your sales pitch. (dust off you resume). Paris to Peoria.

R Dub 2 years ago

Happy to have convinced you guy’s of how bad solar and wind really is. If if can’t compete on the open market with fossil fuel, it was the scam we all knew it was. Also happy to share sales tips for ripping off drooling liberals. Welcome back to the real world…

Vox 2 years ago

Go ask the chinese government which is less polluting: coal or solar?

They produce both, and they see first hand the effects of each. Guess what their choice is?

Yes, they have certainly been the biggest polluters. But they are very visibly taking steps against that. What in my post is bullshit?

Les Johnston 2 years ago

I like the discussion of horse transport and the rise of motor vehicle transport. I am not seeing horses used for transport these days. Horses were used to remove the coal from underground coal mines (so were children). Horses were replaced by coal and other fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be replaced by renewables. Succession planning. I am not sure that John Howard will be replaced!

DogzOwn 2 years ago

Wasn’t the original commitment for 5% reduction by 2020 based on baseline year 2000? Now that baseline is changed to 2005, for same reduction, doesn’t 5% escalate to 13%?